Yes - I noticed that quite a while ago and have mentioned that VFS 3.0 should be targeted at that. If you would like to help get that started we would be happy to have the help!
Ralph On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:45 AM, James Ring wrote: > Has anybody looked at the Java 7 NIO File API? > > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/nio/file/package-summary.html > > I think VFS should be able to make great contributions to that by > porting filesystem implementations to it. > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM, garydgregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> (posting from nabble as I've lost the thread in my inbox) >> >> I want to revive using Java 6 this for trunk. Java 5 is dead, no only is >> forcing projects to update to the trunk stream from VFS 2.0. >> >> In addition to the list below: >> >> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the >> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version. >> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to >> patch. >> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like >> commons-io 2.3. >> >> *I want to use Java 6 @Override on more methods which I find extremely >> helpful.* >> >> Thank you, >> Gary >> >> -- >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks. We to we're taken by surprise by this as it was not discussed >>> prior to the change. A >> >> >> This has been backed out of SVN for now. >> >> (from the JIRA:) >> >> Whys: >> - Make VFS more attractive for new user/developers, new committers in the >> 21st century. No one can force anyone to upgrade to the next version. >> - Keep VFS relevant. The older versions are still there for volunteers to >> patch. >> - Open the door for newer versions of jars that required Java 6, like >> commons-io 2.3. >> >> Gary >> >> >>> s a rule the minimum version should only be changed if something requires >>> it. I'm waiting for a response from Gary as to why this was necessary >>> before asking him to revert it. >>> >>> Ralph >>> >>> On May 14, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Andreas Persson < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>>> FYI: I've updated VFS trunk to Java 6 to avoid getting stuck on older >>>>> versions of jars and further moving VFS in the 21st century ;) Tasked >>>>> as VFS-415. >>>> >>>> I was happy to see VFS-414 and VFS-313 being fixed, thank you very much >>> for that! The change in VFS-415 however makes it impossible for us to use >>> VFS 2.1 (we have several jboss 4 installations left, and jboss 4 doesn't >>> support jdk 6). I just wanted you to know that there still are VFS users >>> that depend on jdk 1.5 compatibility. >>>> >>>> /Andreas >>>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/VFS-Update-VFS-trunk-to-Java-6-tp4629464p4635119.html >> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
